Mmmmhm, not really. Republicans have been heavily involved in gerrymandering, but of course so have democrats. Every other vocal attempt to play some sort of "accounting tricks" with either people or votes has been pretty liberal focused.

I'd be open if you could point out any counter-examples. Republicans have tried to neuter public unions in various ways, but I'd say that's more a "reset to neutral", and it's not really an "accounting trick".

Primary voting states? 'Course, without that, small states would just be washed out, and it's really the individual small states pushing for that anyway, both parties, even though it does work out in some of the race based rural vs urban stuff.

Like I said, just give me some examples. Major ones, not a tiny little thing in north west Oklahoma or something.

Well, there is a completely separate problem wherein politicians, particularly those in congress, best-interests are pretty at odd with those of their constituents.

Classic example: Entitlement programs. Almost everyone understands that dealing with it in some way is important, no one has touched it for decades because it's the "third-rail". If the other party touches it, it's very easy to demagogue it as "killing old people's healthcare" (or whatever). Doesn't matter if the accuser actually agrees with the person who suggested changes, it's just an easy attack ad.

Also: regulatory capture of all kinds, excessive bureaus deptarments, laws to "protect the children" (just good grand-standing opps, really, but still result in real laws), and public unions.

So let's establish this guy is probably a far-left liberal. I don't know the guy, but following the guys profile revealed a bunch of stories talking advocating repealing the second amendment, a pretty solid sign.

And second part is that liberals have a history of advocating various demographic counting, districting, and voting changes that change the setup in their favor, ofteh in fairly shady ways.

Actions proposed (a lot of these, no coincidently, involve race, most involve them indirectly, please pause, just amoment, before you call me a racist):

*Redistricting to make sure there are formed majority-minority districts (that is now more or less law, and there may have even been good reasons in the past, but currently it forms solid Democratic blocks where there might otherwise be none)

* Basically making it impossible to form any form ID checking law at polling places, on the theory that some disadvantaged people do not have ID (does seriously anybody believe this? I'd love it if it wasn't true, but you can't blow your nose without an ID these days, and there are many ways to get an ID for free). This allows illegal aliens to vote and makes double voting much easier in general, especially in urban areas. I know in my various moves around Boston, I absolutely had the ability to vote multiple times in different neighborhoods, if I wanted.

* various laws supporting unions, and making it much easier for them to engage in political action. To the extent that unions are adopted in this country (thankfully shrinking) it is mostly mandatory to be in those unions, and a large percentage of union dues, often the majority, goes to political contributions, almost exclusively democratic.

*Wanting to "statistically weight" census results to increase the numbers reported for urban areas, on the theory that those people are under-counted. That may or be true, but keep in mind that illegals are explicitly counted (though not asked if they are illegal) and it definitely helps the liberal side,as metropolitan areas vote much more heavily democratic.

This is really just another long line in the same thing. The electorate does not vote sufficiently Mr. Stearns way, and so he would like like to "adjust" things. The old vote consistently and tend to be conservative, so Mr. Stearns would like to see that minimized, and all the young people who voted for Obama maximized.

Further note that this system only makes sense if you think the old tend to vote selfishly. There is some evidence that this is true, making it near impossible to touch Medicare or social security without hysterics, but the old have also shown tendencies to think about the future and future generations much more than the young might.

I Paul Stearns were writing satire, but unfortunately, I think he's serious.

No, mike it isn't. "Admitted" denotes primarily two things. That there was a secret, and that he was revealing a fact. Are you trying to say those two things are true? Cuz I will knock down that assertion quite soundly, if you are.

I have yet to see you ever admit (no quotes) that you might have shown an inappropriate bias. Just own up to your mistakes, you arrogant bastard, it's not that big a deal, but refusing to either realize it or "admit" it is.

I actually sorta agree with AC#2 (ACpost #3, here, and disagreeing with the AC that made post #1&2). I don't think Crowely was agreeing to Manning's treatment (he had just said otherwise), only to him being in jail.

No.....there's not. "ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid," These are thing Obama has pretty direct control over. That's badmouthing the boss. Even if he was 100% right, even if Obama agreed with him, or thought he was awesome otherwise, that's mostly going to get you fired.

No.....there's not. "ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid," These are thing Obama has pretty direct control over. That's badmouthing the boss. Even if he was 100% right, even if Obama agreed with him, or thought he was awesome otherwise, that's mostly going to get you fired.

Mike, I've noticed this pattern of yours a few times. SOmeone calls you out on something, you do sometimes respond.....but only to mock them, never really address the concern.

Like me, this AC questioned the use of "admit" rather than say "said". You didn't address that.

Now you did say that Crowley mentioned he should clearly be in jail, indirectly referencing the "in the right place" comment, and so the AC was wrong. But don't you think it would have been better to just point that out, rather being snide, and ignoring his legitimate complaint about "admit"?

'Cuz you see, there's a mile of difference between a guy "admitting" something, "admitting" something implies there was a fact there, versus that guy stating his opinion about what a series of facts constitute.

"Admitting" is also Pejorative, and implies something was done wrong. Now that,, right there, is in dispute.

Cuz the facts here are not in dispute. The military is really pretty open about the exact treatment Manning has received, it's been reported on widely. What's in dispute is what that amounts to. Some people have called it "torture"(Hah!), to others it seems not all that different than normal military prison, which, btw, freaking sucks.

To me, eh, it looks a little unnecessarily heavy handed, but frankly the military tends to do that. (I got put on "restriction" once.....I might have preferred to sit in a jail cell.)

Point is, there's nothing to "admit", the facts are neither secret nor in dispute, but the interpretation of those facts is still in debate. By using the pejorative "admit" you saddle the issue with all these accusations--that there are secrets being kept and that military has done wrong--without actually having to say them.

It's a not so subtle slander attempt, and it really ruins the illusion of non-partisanship you try to convey.

I'm glad you feel Assange is a bad person. However, I suspect you mean his personal misanthropy, arrogance, and apparent misogyny, rather than his willing disregard for the real damage his leaks have cause, in the pursuit some sort of socially beneficial "revelation" that I frankly don't see.